From Jean de Neufville & Fils

[dateline] Amsterdam April 22. 1782

[salute] Sir

Although indisposition and absence may have frustrated our wishes of being first in
paying Your Excellency an homage in which our Country partakes so much of, by the
success of your negotiations we trust to your Excellencys indulgence for being Satisfied
with this apology, and tho’ late, that you will accept of this tribute which yeilds
to none in sincerity. Our wishes are in nothing more earnest than that your Excy:
may long Contribute to preserve that harmony which we hope will result without interuption
from that union you have had so much share informing between both Republicks, and
as a reward to your Labours may you from this time see daily accrue that advantage
to each, which so natural a connection gives the best reason to expect.

From John Thaxter

[dateline] Amsterdam 22d. April 1782

[salute] Sir

I was duly honor’d with your favor of the 20th,1 and its Contents gave me sincere pleasure, and its Injunctions shall be observed.

Mr. J. Van Staphorst has called upon me this Afternoon, and acquainted me with his
great distress respecting the House engaged for the Loan:2 that the Man is an Anglomane or at least very lately converted: that he has within
these six Weeks indulged himself in very indecent Expressions against America: that
it makes a Noise in the American Society and upon the Exchange, that a Man of his
Character should be preferred to old experienced Friends—that it will do much Injury
on both Sides, and be a disservice to the Cause: that if it is possible, he hopes
that House may be prevented from opening it: that many well-wishers and Friends are
astonished and could hardly have believed it: that he has recieved a Letter from the
Baron3 upon the Subject, who would not write his Opinion to You unasked: that it gives great
Uneasiness to several of the—&ca &ca &ca. I observed to him, I could make no Answer,
having nothing to do in the Business, and prayed him to communicate his sentiments
to You. He declined and requested me to mention them to You, which I have done in
substance. He would esteem it an Honor most certainly to be employed, but would never
open his Lips if a House was engaged which was known to have been uniformly friendly
to America. He hinted as if Messr. Hope might be behind the Curtain—it was a Conjecture
only. He thinks the Loan will not succeed with honor and Reputation, as it now stands,
and that You will find his Sentiments as I have given them above to be well grounded
upon Enquiry.

It is not my Business to make any Comment, nor express any Sentiment but Sorrow if
all this is true, as I must believe.

[salute] With a Respectful & an invariable Attachment, I have the honor to be &c

2. Jacob and Nicolaas van Staphorst repeated their complaints about John Hodshon and
JA’s initial decision to place the loan with his firm in a letter to John Jay dated
24 Nov. 1785 (PCC, Misc. Papers, Reel No. 4, f. 684–699). In their letter, which indicates they met personally with
JA, the van Staphorsts wrote that they informed JA that conditions favored opening a loan, to which JA replied that he was negotiating with John Hodshon on the matter. The van Staphorsts
continued, “We took the Liberty to tell him, this was another impolitic Measure; as
this Gentleman altho’ a Rich and able Merchant and a Person well qualified for the
Direction of a Loan, was not looked upon in a good Light by this Nation and especially
by the Patriotic Part to whom this Loan was to owe its Support and Success. This had
no Weight with Mr. Adams, and while he pretended to believe Our Counsel proceeded
from Self-Interest, We had the Mortification to hear from him, that in his Opinion
John Hodshon was as good a Republican and as great a Lover of Freedom as ourselves.”
JA obstinately “thought fit in spite of the Counsel of his best Friends, and among others
of the Pensionary Van Berckel, to have the Loan opened publicly by Mr. Hodshon, With
no other Effect than that he raised from the Well Affected to the American Cause great
Complaints against his Proceedings, And finally after the Loss of a great deal of
precious time, he was forced to withdraw the Order from Mr. Hodshon.” For more comments
by the van Staphorsts, see JA to Fizeaux, Grand & Co., 30 April, note 1, below. See also vol. 11:103, note 4, for the van Staphorsts’ criticism of JA’s attempt in 1781 to raise a loan through Jean de Neufville & Fils.

3. Since Thaxter refers only to “the Baron,” he probably means Joan Derk van der Capellen
tot den Pol. The editors have no evidence, however, that van der Capellen opposed
Hodshon’s role in raising the loan. Indeed, on 2 May he wrote to JA of his intention to subscribe to Hodshon’s loan (Adams Papers). This may have reflected his desire to support the American cause, regardless of
who was raising the loan.